In the ’80s and ’90s, GLAAD was necessary, if only because top media outlets needed to be reminded that journalistic ethics applied to AIDS coverage, too. But in 2014, how necessary is GLAAD? I don’t mean to suggest that the organization isn’t doing some good for our world – as I’ve already noted, they are! But as America edges closer and closer to unqualified and full inclusion of LGBT persons, I wonder if an organization whose raison d’etre is to find and shame instances of discrimination isn’t just a bit archaic.

If our goal is to progress beyond defamation against LGBT persons, then that means GLAAD has a sell-by date. To put it in a different, albeit cheekier way: Defamation is good for GLAAD’s business. To bankrupt our society of LGBT defamation would certainly put GLAAD out of work. It’s hard for me to imagine I’m the only one who’s wondered about this. In fact, GLAAD’s recent name-change only confirms that their leadership has been reexamining and revising their purposes moving forward. Again, I’m not suggesting our world doesn’t need GLAAD: There certainly is a place for them. But A&E’s latest reversal should make us question what exactly that place is.

There’s a famous quote (most likely apocryphal) often attributed to Mother Teresa that I think applies to both the Duck Dynasty/GLAAD fiasco and the greater political context which frames it. After declining an invitation to an anti-war rally, she is said to have explained, “If you have a pro-peace rally, invite me.” Whatever the true origin of the quote, the idea is that rallying against war is pointless, but doing the difficult work of promoting peace is a better way to effect lasting and seismic changes.

In the same way, speaking out against defamation is a noble thing to do. But gracing our conversation and behavior with the compassion that is sometimes lacking from our loudest political battles – that is more than noble. It’s kind.

Forum Poster wrote:Middle America may be getting tired of the bullying by the Itolerants and their PC police.

But just like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Morris Dees, GLAAD has to have an outrage and an injustice going on to validate their raison d'etre and keep the money rolling in.

Phil Commander failed to show any tolerance to his fellow citizens that happen to be homosexual. He compared them the advocates of bestiality. The radical RIght loves Phil, but 95% of Amercia thinks he and his family is a freakshow.

The author of this article deserves to have the tables turned on him. He is Brandon Ambrosino, a professional-gay-Christian who makes a living by pretending to be an earnest liberal objectively questioning the biases that liberals don't recognize in themselves.

He went to college at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (though he left a year short of graduation) and maintains connections with officials at the University. He admits there may be some homophobes at Liberty, but he didn't cross paths with them.

The liberal-leaning Huffington Post often publishes his contributions. His literary persona is "a liberal writing to liberals". Don't believe it.

His life mission seems to be to cajole gays and liberals into thinking that those they perceive as opponents are really nice guys, and not dangerous or antagonistic to them at all. And liberals and gay supporters in fact are the ones whose objectivity and sincerity should be questioned. He wears several layers of sheep's clothing, and always says "we" and "us" to disarm us. He even says "we" when he writes something directed to Jews, but he's not Jewish, he's of Italian descent.

jiminix wrote:The author of this article deserves to have the tables turned on him. He is Brandon Ambrosino, a professional-gay-Christian who makes a living by pretending to be an earnest liberal objectively questioning the biases that liberals don't recognize in themselves.

He went to college at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (though he left a year short of graduation) and maintains connections with officials at the University. He admits there may be some homophobes at Liberty, but he didn't cross paths with them.

The liberal-leaning Huffington Post often publishes his contributions. His literary persona is "a liberal writing to liberals". Don't believe it.

His life mission seems to be to cajole gays and liberals into thinking that those they perceive as opponents are really nice guys, and not dangerous or antagonistic to them at all. And liberals and gay supporters in fact are the ones whose objectivity and sincerity should be questioned. He wears several layers of sheep's clothing, and always says "we" and "us" to disarm us. He even says "we" when he writes something directed to Jews, but he's not Jewish, he's of Italian descent.

Remember the name, Brandon Ambrosino. He has a hidden agenda.

So you don't like the guy. Did you get past seeing the byline? So what of what he wrote in the article? Do you disagree with all of it?

bamapilot wrote:So you don't like the guy. Did you get past seeing the byline? So what of what he wrote in the article? Do you disagree with all of it?

Yes, I read his article, as well as a number of others that he has published over time. He's definitely likeable in his writing, and probably likeable in person as well. It's not him that I dislike - it's the devious type of article that he writes.

His goal in the article is to try to discredit GLAAD while appearing to be pro-gay. After calling into question GLAAD's present-day relevance and sincerity on several points, he does include the generic "GLAAD has done some good things", of course without ever actually naming one good thing it ever did.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them?

The Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.

To demonstrate his neutrality, he put in this "criticism" of Phil:

To compare Papa Duck to Papa Francis, as conservatives are doing, is, in my opinion, to misrepresent both of them.

Any liberal reading one of his articles may be fooled into thinking Ambrosino is one of "us". But after you read several of them and see their unrelenting attacks on liberals and gays, and consistent siding with conservatives, then only an idiot would be in doubt about where he stands.

jiminix wrote:The author of this article deserves to have the tables turned on him. He is Brandon Ambrosino, a professional-gay-Christian who makes a living by pretending to be an earnest liberal objectively questioning the biases that liberals don't recognize in themselves.

He went to college at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (though he left a year short of graduation) and maintains connections with officials at the University. He admits there may be some homophobes at Liberty, but he didn't cross paths with them.

The liberal-leaning Huffington Post often publishes his contributions. His literary persona is "a liberal writing to liberals". Don't believe it.

His life mission seems to be to cajole gays and liberals into thinking that those they perceive as opponents are really nice guys, and not dangerous or antagonistic to them at all. And liberals and gay supporters in fact are the ones whose objectivity and sincerity should be questioned. He wears several layers of sheep's clothing, and always says "we" and "us" to disarm us. He even says "we" when he writes something directed to Jews, but he's not Jewish, he's of Italian descent.

Remember the name, Brandon Ambrosino. He has a hidden agenda.

He's a jiminix!? Maybe he's pretending to be a pretender who's an earnest liberal objectively questioning the biases that some liberals can't recognize in themselves because they can't objectively see their own biases unless they're tricked by themselves because they're trying not to be tricked.